The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Vineet Vincent Pereira, also known as Father Vineet Vincent Paresh, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 295A IPC, holding that a prima facie case exists based on allegations that he made statements during prayer meetings asserting Christianity as the “only true religion” and hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus; the court refused to interfere with the chargesheet dated February 19, 2024.
The case pertains to FIR No. 304 of 2023 registered at Muhammadabad Police Station in Uttar Pradesh’s Mau district, with proceedings currently pending before the Judicial Magistrate (State vs. Vineet Vincent Pereira).
Referring to the FIR narration, the court noted that the applicant allegedly stated during prayer meetings that there is only one religion which is Christian and, in doing so, hurt the sentiments of a particular religion, namely Hindu.
The court held that such assertions, if made in a manner that disparages other religions, can attract provisions under Section 295A IPC.
Counsel for the Father Vineet Vincent Paresh argued that he had been falsely implicated and that no illegal religious conversion had taken place. It was submitted that the investigating officer had already concluded that no such conversion occurred and that there was no material to sustain charges under Section 295A IPC.
The defence also contended that the chargesheet was filed without a fair investigation and that the Magistrate took cognisance without proper application of judicial mind, terming it an abuse of the process of law.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
It was further submitted that at the stage of cognisance, the court is only required to assess whether a prima facie case exists.
After hearing both sides, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the central issue was whether the allegations in the FIR fall within the ambit of Section 295A IPC, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Emphasising the legal position, the High Court reiterated that at the stage of taking cognisance, the Magistrate is only required to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed and not to conduct a mini trial or examine the defence in detail.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar (2002) and Nupur Talwar vs. CBI (2012), the court stated that the test at this stage is whether there is “sufficient ground for proceeding” and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
The court further held that the submissions made by the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial.
In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that the application is devoid of merit and dismissed the plea.
However, the court clarified that the applicant is free to avail remedies available under law at appropriate stages.
Historically, the Church and evangelical forces have focused more on attacking Hindutva, especially since their expansion in India during the colonial period. Their outreach and training often involve criticising non-Christian beliefs, dismissing other religions, and projecting Christianity as the only true, globally accepted faith. In this approach, other faiths are frequently portrayed as inferior to the Church.
On the ground, this creates a situation where people who are not deeply aware of Biblical teachings are first exposed to criticism of their own traditions before being introduced to Christianity. This method, many argue, combines religious messaging with ideological positioning, gradually influencing belief systems.
From a Hindu philosophical perspective, the idea of “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” emphasises that truth is one, but is understood and expressed in many ways. Therefore, claims that elevate one religion as the only truth while dismissing others are seen as direct attacks on Hindu beliefs and traditions.
What was earlier viewed as an ethical or ideological conflict has now, in certain instances, reached the legal domain, with such statements becoming the subject of criminal cases and judicial scrutiny.
